Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

studioAT What with a similar film being made about Beatrix Potter not too long after/ before this film it seems a trend it emerging about the real life of beloved authors.With Anne Hathaway, Dame Maggie Smith and Julie Walters all involved you'd hope for a better film than what we actually get.Slow, dull and all in all not that entertaining, this film manages to provide us with information but seems to be lacking the fun in doing so.If you want to learn more about Austen I suggest you visit Bath instead. Or better still just read the novels. You can then draw your own conclusions about how Jane became Jane Austen.

callalou1 It wasn't that I expected a historically accurate film. Enough time has gone by since its release that just about everything that could have been said on that score, already has been.No, it was the two-dimensional feel of all the characters that disappointed, as though they didn't quite believe in themselves or this story, and they seemed almost ghostly by comparison with the wonderful characters in Jane's novels. I expected much more from a BBC movie.The scene was beautifully set and very accurately depicted, and could scarcely be faulted but because the plot was so thin and the characters so unconvincing my attention kept wandering. I even dozed off for a moment or two at one point. I was glad I was watching a DVD as I had to backtrack a couple of times.If you like historical froth this movie is OK but I honestly think Jane Austen would have disapproved of it, and not because of its content concerning her brief involvement with Tom Lefroy but simply because she would not have recognised herself.

SnoopyStyle This is an imagined semi-biographical story of Jane Austen. It's around 1795, and Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) is a rebellious young woman before her great works. She forms a combative relationship with rogue Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy) while her family wants a more aristocratic match in Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox) and stability of money.It's very doubtful that this has much relationship to reality, but it's still a very good movie. Hathaway and McAvoy are great young actors, and they have magnetic chemistry. It's really an interesting way to create an Austen-like story by using her own life. And I do like the ending and the depressing tone no matter how little it has to do with her true life. We must allow for poetic license. I do wish for a faster start to the drama. Once it gets started, there are great performances such as Julie Walters as Jane's mother in addition to the two leads. I like to think of this as a Jane Austen novel that she never got to write herself.

laura-petrescu I have to begin by saying that James McAvoy was mistakenly cast. He was supposed to be charming, handsome, a lady killer, a fighter, a lover. Indeed you cannot judge a book by it's cover, however you can certainly do so when someone tells you the book is green with yellow writing and what you see in front of you is a red book with purple writing ... You kind of notice that this isn't what it's supposed to be, right? So it is with McAvoy ... As for Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Jane Austen I consider it to be tolerable, even surprising at times, however the accent was absolutely terrible ... why is it that it's so easy for the British to fake American accents (look at Hugh Laurie in House) and yet it's obviously an ordeal for Americans to fake a British accent? That kind of unsettled me, the part with the accent I mean. Other than that it was alright.However, James McAvoy as the lead male character clearly drowns the more interesting parts of the movie ... No offense ...